Re: prov-o rec confusion

Kerry

Thanks for the acknowledgment. You might want to take a look at prov:influence - it's not transitive but provides something similiar to tracedTo

Paul

On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:22, "Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au" <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> wrote:

> Thank you, acknowledged  as answering my concerns.
> ISSUE_612 transitivity : Understood.  I probably should have phrased this instead as  disappointment about the loss of prov: tracedTo, but I understand that there is no barrier to a user defining this on demand, and  I can conceive of some reasons to leave it out of prov-o.
>  
> ISSUE_612 constraints: Understood.
>  
> Kerry
>  
> From: pgroth@gmail.com [mailto:pgroth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 8:50 PM
> To: Taylor, Kerry (ICT Centre, Acton)
> Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: prov-o rec confusion
>  
> Dear Kerry,
>  
> First, thanks for your interest in using PROV. 
>  
> The working group has looked at your comment and attempted to address your issue. You can find our response below. We diveded your issue into two parts: the transitivity of derivation and encoding constraints in owl. You can also find an official record in the linked page. 
>  
> I hope this answers your concern. It would be great if you could acknowledge this response, letting us know whether it did or not.
>  
> Thanks
> Paul
>  
>  
> ISSUE-612 (Transitivity of Derivation)
> §  Group Response
> §  In this answer, we just focus on the transitivity of Derivation. We leave the issue of transitivity of other relations to the next answer, which deals with the broad issue of encoding of constraints in OWL.
> §  The Working Group could not reach consensus on the transitivity of derivation.
> §  While it is recognized that in some cases specific notions of derivation can be regarded as transitive, there are examples in which this property does not obviously hold.
> §  Given this, the group has decided not define wasDerivedFrom as a transitive relation.
> §  If users need a notion of transitive derivation, they are invited to define a subproperty of prov:wasDerivedFrom that is transitive
> §  References:
> §  ISSUE-56: discussion on transitivity of derivation: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/56
> §  Example where transitivity does not obviously hold: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0191.html
> §  Early proposal of derivation as non-transitive: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/65fcb3f7c34f/model/working-copy/wd5/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
> §  Group resolution: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-08#resolution_1
>  
> ISSUE-612 (Encoding of Constraints in OWL)
> §  Original email:
> §  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0005.html
> §  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0000.html
> §  Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612
> §  Group Response
> §  In a prior resolution (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-06#resolution_4), the working group decided that the group itself would not encode constraints in prov-o OWL or any Semantic Web technologies.
> §  The group wants to ensure that provenance expressed using prov-o can be "scruffy".
> §  Implementations of the constraints using Semantic Web technologies are encouraged.
> §  The working group would consider hosting an implementation in OWL provided by an outside party.
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> All:
>  
> Below you'll find comments from Kerry Taylor on prov-o.
>  
> Again the issue seems to be the encoding of constraints in prov-o. 
>  
> Paul
>  
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
> Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:30 AM
> Subject: prov-o rec confusion
> To: pgroth@gmail.com
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> I am working on an "application" for the recommendation of prov-o, and I am confused. I'm also not sure who to address this query/comment to -- please feel free to forward as you consider appropriate.
> 
> All the transitive characteristics of properties (such as wasDerivedFrom) seem to have disappeared from an earlier version of prov-o  I was working with previously. I can't find any explanation for this, and am doubly confused by this following extract from the  on the  candidate rec prov-o spec (this is only an example in the spec, but it refers to asymmetric and irreflexive characteristics  that have also disappeared).
> 
> "prov:wasDerivedFrom
>    a owl:AsymmetricProperty, owl:IrreflexiveProperty, owl:ObjectProperty;
>    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>;
>    prov:inverse     "hadDerivation";
>    rdfs:domain  prov:Entity;
>    rdfs:range   prov:Entity;"
> 
> I have the impression that the functionality has been devolved instead to the (more expressive)
> "Constraints of the PROV Data Model", perhaps due to the pressure to be OWL-RL compliant?
> 
> I would really like to see this brought back to PROV-O somehow.
> Maybe a separate prov-o module declaring these things could be  developed and  optionally imported if desired. (The missing inverse properties could also be handled the same way).
> 
> Kerry
>  
> 
>  
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | 
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam